The flight test summary of the final PRIME flight. They built four vehicles, had three successful test flights and ended the program there. The fourth, unflown, vehicle is in the Air Force Museum in Dayton. There's also a flown PRIME vehicle there, but I don't know which one.

Martin Company had a quite a decade, with the Titan missiles and orbital launchers, with Pershing (perhaps the best long range land based ballistic missile the U.S. ever fielded), with the very early "smart bombs" like Walleye, and with X-23/X-24, among other things. This company did some solid engineering.

Film from the Atlas Centaur Heritage Film Collection which was donated to the San Diego Air and Space Museum by Lockheed Martin and United Launch Alliance. The Collection contains 3,000 reels of 16-millimeter film.

A common myth about X-23 PRIME is that it had the same shape as the manned X-24 (USAF Flight Dynamics Lab SV-5). Actually it had a large ramp added between the vertical fins to make the SV-5 shape stable during the hypersonic part of reentry, similar to the ramp on X-20 Dyna-Soar. Unfortunately the ramp reduced stability at transonic and subsonic speeds. The X-23 flight vehicles deployed a ballute well above Mach 1 to keep them from tumbling.

The myth persists because the recovered X-23 #3 was incorrectly restored for display at the Air Force Museum. Photos in Jay Miller's book THE X-PLANES clearly show #3 with the ramp after recovery and without it after it was cleaned up at Dayton. They also puttied up the severe damage to the ablative heat shield.

The promoters of the X-38 claimed that X-23 and X-24 between them had proven the SV-5 shape at all Mach numbers, so they could use it without any expensive wind tunnel and flight tests. I don't know if they really believed the myth or were just low-balling the cost to lure NASA into funding the program. In reality they designed two completely new shapes for X-38 and put them through an interminable series of B-52 drop tests that tripled the cost of the program by the time it was cancelled.

The promoters of the X-38 claimed that X-23 and X-24 between them had proven the SV-5 shape at all Mach numbers, so they could use it without any expensive wind tunnel and flight tests. I don't know if they really believed the myth or were just low-balling the cost to lure NASA into funding the program. In reality they designed two completely new shapes for X-38 and put them through an interminable series of B-52 drop tests that tripled the cost of the program by the time it was cancelled.

That's an interesting assertion, seeing as Wayne Hale has stated on his blog that it was the one part of the US segment of ISS that was coming in under budget.

On April 19, 1967, a spacecraft that looked somewhat like a fat, winged dart reentered the Earth’s atmosphere over the Pacific Ocean. As it dipped into the upper reaches of the ionosphere it began to glow and was surrounded by a fiery plasma. But rather than traveling in a straight line as most reentering spacecraft did, the glowing craft began banking at hypersonic speeds, finally slowing and deploying a parachute at a point more than 1,100 kilometers off its orbital path. A JC-130 aircraft grabbed its parachute lines high above the Pacific and the crew winched it inside. The experimental spacecraft, known as the X-23 PRIME, was not a classified project. According to the US Air Force, it was intended to test the ability of a spacecraft to travel crossrange from its entry orbit, something that many years later would be incorporated into the design of NASA’s space shuttle.

Just a question. Since Kodak was in Rochester, N.Y, and since the objective was to get the pictures as fast as possible, I suppose that the lifting body would have landed at a military base close from Rochester ?

It sounds logical, in order to minimize transit time by road or by air, plus I suppose the NRO would be quite nervous about USSR very high-res picture travelling across the U.S countryside, even under cover.

So I wonder, was there an Air Force base near Rochester where the lifting body could have quietly and discretely landed ?

just asking...

Logged

...you have been found guilty by the elders of the forum of a (imaginary) vendetta against Saint Elon - BLAAASPHEMER !

Some materials on ASSET, which was contemporaneous with PRIME. It was also an experimental hypersonic reentry vehicle.

Both come up in TA Heppenheimers history of hypersonics.

I think ASSET was the more interesting from the TPS PoV, with what looks like (essentially) the only real attempt to fly the X30 Dyna Soar shape and the various interesting materials used.A nose tip with a 3' radius made in ZrO and a 2" leading edge in Graphite (is that basically RCC?) Very impressive. As well as the Niobium and Molydbum alloys used.

Logged

BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Just a question. Since Kodak was in Rochester, N.Y, and since the objective was to get the pictures as fast as possible, I suppose that the lifting body would have landed at a military base close from Rochester ?

It sounds logical, in order to minimize transit time by road or by air, plus I suppose the NRO would be quite nervous about USSR very high-res picture travelling across the U.S countryside, even under cover.

So I wonder, was there an Air Force base near Rochester where the lifting body could have quietly and discretely landed ?

just asking...

Griffiss AFB was a SAC base near Rome, NY in that timeframe. However, I doubt there would be enough cross-range capability to reenter over water and land in the Eastern US. I would guess reentry over the Pacific, landing at Edwards AFB, and then flying the film to Rochester would be more likely.

Just a question. Since Kodak was in Rochester, N.Y, and since the objective was to get the pictures as fast as possible, I suppose that the lifting body would have landed at a military base close from Rochester ?

It sounds logical, in order to minimize transit time by road or by air, plus I suppose the NRO would be quite nervous about USSR very high-res picture travelling across the U.S countryside, even under cover.

So I wonder, was there an Air Force base near Rochester where the lifting body could have quietly and discretely landed ?

just asking...

Well, it wouldn't be "quiet" with the sonic boom announcing it's arrival...

Just a question. Since Kodak was in Rochester, N.Y, and since the objective was to get the pictures as fast as possible, I suppose that the lifting body would have landed at a military base close from Rochester ?

I lived in Rochester and liked it. But the weather is not great. You want clear skies and low winds to catch a vehicle hanging under a parachute, and Rochester and upstate New York doesn't have that.

I suspect that if they had pursued this, they would have brought the reentry vehicle down either at Edwards or in Nevada. Reentry could start off the West Coast (Alaska, Canada) and then direct it inland.

Also, bringing a space vehicle down in New York would attract a lot of attention and people would ask why they were doing that. And then people might say "Kodak is not far away and they do film..." So it would be bad for secrecy. Nevada is better.

If they did the catch with a C-130, I don't know if they would just send the aircraft all the way to Rochester, or if they'd land and transfer the film to a C-135 that could go faster.

Just a question. Since Kodak was in Rochester, N.Y, and since the objective was to get the pictures as fast as possible, I suppose that the lifting body would have landed at a military base close from Rochester ?

It sounds logical, in order to minimize transit time by road or by air, plus I suppose the NRO would be quite nervous about USSR very high-res picture travelling across the U.S countryside, even under cover.

So I wonder, was there an Air Force base near Rochester where the lifting body could have quietly and discretely landed ?

just asking...

Griffiss AFB was a SAC base near Rome, NY in that timeframe. However, I doubt there would be enough cross-range capability to reenter over water and land in the Eastern US. I would guess reentry over the Pacific, landing at Edwards AFB, and then flying the film to Rochester would be more likely.

Don't forget, the Seneca Army Depot was also just outside of Rochester in Romulus had a long runway. Being a nuclear (alleged) munitions depot it would had the extra security and been perfect for black programs.

Following on the idea to land a film receptacle lifting body RV in upstate NY, near(er) the Kodak facilities in Rochester:

Was it ever considered to co-locate the RV re-entry over-land range, the facility to receive the RV and its film, AND the film processing facility? (Co-location meaning all within a 50 or 100 km distance of each other.)

I figure there would be (many?) reasons not to, but did anyone analyze this? Just a thought.

There were two locations: Kodak in Rochester, and Westover AFB in Massachusetts.

There was a lot of logic to Kodak in Rochester. That's where all the expertise was. Keep in mind that the engineers and technicians who worked for Kodak were the best in the world at film technology, both the manufacturing and the processing. It's not really like you would train some people and then have them go work elsewhere; you'd want the processing facility where the geniuses did all their other work. They really were held in very high esteem by the US scientific leadership and intelligence community. I don't know much about the particulars, but they were apparently able to get more data out of film by treating each roll differently. I don't know how they would know what would work best ahead of time, but maybe they would develop a few exposures at the beginning of a real, look at them, and then adjust the chemistry for the rest of the roll.

Kodak use to keep detail records beyond just the lot number on every roll of film they produced, even consumer film. I would hazard they knew everything in every step in the manufacturing process, from where on the web it came, the conditions and age of all chemicals used, temperatures, humidity, crystal structure, everything. Kodak was crazy, in college I spent a semester working in the single use camera group with the people who developed Kodak's Disc camera, instant camera, and single use camera's. They lived and breathed film.

My point, before developing the film they knew more about each roll of film than you than you most likely know about yourself.

"The X-23A designation is generally attributed to the Martin Marietta SV-5D PRIME unmanned lifting body reentry test vehicle, but available USAF nomenclature records show that X-23A was never actually assigned. On 16 November 1965, the designation X-23A was requested for the SV-5P [sic!] vehicle, which is known to have been designated as X-24A in mid-1967 (see next paragraph). The vehicle description accompanying the designation request of 1965 clearly describes the SV-5P as a low-speed (Mach 2 to landing) manned lifting-body aircraft. However, in a letter dated 15 December 1965, the request was disapproved for the reason that the subject aircraft was unmanned (at that time, the aircraft designation system was still used as originally intended in 1962, i.e. for manned aircraft only)! This appears to be very weird indeed, but apparently there was a severe misunderstanding regarding the nature of the research aircraft at the office which had to approve the designation.

In late 1966, the offices responsible for the USAF's lifting body reentry programs again pondered the question how to designate the test vehicles. After a stillborn proposal to introduce a completely new designation category for gliding reentry vehicles, it was decided that the best way to go was to request the designations X-23A for the unmanned SV-5D PRIME and X-24A for the manned SV-5P. X-24A was accordingly requested and approved, but it appears that no actual request for X-23A was ever sent to the nomenclature office. Reasons are unknown, but maybe it was realized that an MDS request for an unmanned vehicle was futile, especially when the rejection of the 1965 request for X-23A explicitly said that unmanned aircraft need no designation. Whatever the reasons, the designation X-23A was never even requested for, let alone allocated to, the SV-5D PRIME vehicle."

Just a question. Since Kodak was in Rochester, N.Y, and since the objective was to get the pictures as fast as possible, I suppose that the lifting body would have landed at a military base close from Rochester ?

It sounds logical, in order to minimize transit time by road or by air, plus I suppose the NRO would be quite nervous about USSR very high-res picture travelling across the U.S countryside, even under cover.

So I wonder, was there an Air Force base near Rochester where the lifting body could have quietly and discretely landed ?

just asking...

Griffiss AFB was a SAC base near Rome, NY in that timeframe. However, I doubt there would be enough cross-range capability to reenter over water and land in the Eastern US. I would guess reentry over the Pacific, landing at Edwards AFB, and then flying the film to Rochester would be more likely.

Don't forget, the Seneca Army Depot was also just outside of Rochester in Romulus had a long runway. Being a nuclear (alleged) munitions depot it would had the extra security and been perfect for black programs.

Thank you, that is most kind. I'm never even sure that anybody's paying much attention.

Coming up:

-the decision to build the KH-11 KENNEN-astronauts on MOL

(And after that: 2001: A Space Odyssey, QUILL, HIGHER BOY, a book review or two, and maybe I'll revisit the SIGINT satellite stuff, and I still really want to write about UPWARD/LMSS in detail. But my day job keeps getting in the way of my hobby...)

Kodak use to keep detail records beyond just the lot number on every roll of film they produced, even consumer film. I would hazard they knew everything in every step in the manufacturing process, from where on the web it came, the conditions and age of all chemicals used, temperatures, humidity, crystal structure, everything. Kodak was crazy, in college I spent a semester working in the single use camera group with the people who developed Kodak's Disc camera, instant camera, and single use camera's. They lived and breathed film.

My point, before developing the film they knew more about each roll of film than you than you most likely know about yourself.